4 ms·

> If I say that you are a wife- If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things a

> If I say that you are a wife- If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be. What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles so as to make itself a news source. Plus they apply filters and annotation to give the false impression that the information they provide is the "correct one". This is "publishing via moderating" I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)". That is not so. This allows malicious actors to hide behind "i'm just a user".

nobody9999 5y ago
>If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be. You ignored the point. Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online, not the platform that hosts my words. >What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles. If it was just user posts people would have left. Who says that "official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users" can't be legally challenged? All section 230 does is keep you from suing the third party. You can sue any or all of the folks you mention every day of the week and twice on Sundays (okay, probably not at all on Sundays, as most civil courts in the US are closed on Sunday, but I trust you take my point). >These assymetries no longer make sense imho. This is a new era where everyone, personally is a publisher. And you can sue anyone and everyone for defamation if you wish. I'm sure your lawyer will absolutely adore you if you do. Just make sure that retainer check doesn't bounce! >I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)". Actually, Section 230 makes no such distinction. If you are the party making the statement, Section 230 does not apply. Please see here[0] for more details. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  > Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ? I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it. and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions. (Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions. What I post on HN or Facebook or in a comment section of the NYT is my responsibility, because I am the source of those posts. What the NYT publishes as news or opinion is their responsibility as the source of those items. As for the algorithms in use, that's one of the reasons I quit FB seven years ago. But such algorithms are irrelevant to who authored a particular piece of prose. The author might be liable for libel/defamation (assuming that can be proved), but the platform that hosts their content is not. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. And I'm going to stop trying to explain it to you. Good luck!
nobody9999 5y ago
>If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be. But I didn't send that content to a newspaper, did I? I posted it here on HN. Is HN responsible for my words here? Should you be able to sue HN for them? Answer those questions honestly, and you will be enlightened.

nobody9999 5y ago

>If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be. You ignored the point. Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online, not the platform that hosts my words. >What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles. If it was just user posts people would have left. Who says that "official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users" can't be legally challenged? All section 230 does is keep you from suing the third party. You can sue any or all of the folks you mention every day of the week and twice on Sundays (okay, probably not at all on Sundays, as most civil courts in the US are closed on Sunday, but I trust you take my point). >These assymetries no longer make sense imho. This is a new era where everyone, personally is a publisher. And you can sue anyone and everyone for defamation if you wish. I'm sure your lawyer will absolutely adore you if you do. Just make sure that retainer check doesn't bounce! >I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)". Actually, Section 230 makes no such distinction. If you are the party making the statement, Section 230 does not apply. Please see here[0] for more details. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

cblconfederate 5y ago
> Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ? I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it. and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions. (Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions. What I post on HN or Facebook or in a comment section of the NYT is my responsibility, because I am the source of those posts. What the NYT publishes as news or opinion is their responsibility as the source of those items. As for the algorithms in use, that's one of the reasons I quit FB seven years ago. But such algorithms are irrelevant to who authored a particular piece of prose. The author might be liable for libel/defamation (assuming that can be proved), but the platform that hosts their content is not. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. And I'm going to stop trying to explain it to you. Good luck!

nobody9999 5y ago

>If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be. But I didn't send that content to a newspaper, did I? I posted it here on HN. Is HN responsible for my words here? Should you be able to sue HN for them? Answer those questions honestly, and you will be enlightened.